ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2013
Chinese physician perception of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's Perception of Transgastric and Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) - Impact of Medical Education, Stage of Life and Cross-Cultural Aspects.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA gross difference of opinion prevails amongst the physicians about the acceptance of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).
aimsThe purpose of this study was to explore the Chinese physician perception of NOTES.
methodsThis is a questionnaire-based study, which was conducted during a conference on gastroenterology and endoscopy. The information was obtained from the participants about the demographic and practice characteristics and their perception of NOTES.
resultsThe study recruited 221 physicians: 192 gastroenterologists and 29 surgeons. The physicians' awareness of NOTES prior to the survey showed the same confidence with NOTES as compared to those with no knowledge about it (24.2 vs. 25.6 %; P = 0.99). The NOTES preference was not different between female and male doctors (21.8 vs. 26.3 %; P = 0.5952). More surgeons (47.6 %) opted for NOTES as treatment or recommended it for their families than gastroenterologists (21.1 %; P = 0.0165). However, the multivariate analysis confirmed that the physicians chose NOTES only if their hospital had already performed NOTES on humans successfully (OR = 3.53, 95 % CI 1.17-10.60; P = 0.0247). The gastroenterologists believed more often than surgeons that NOTES had the potential to become a mainstream procedure (96.9 vs. 81.0 %; P = 0.0084); but the inclination for NOTES training was similar in both groups (96.9 vs. 95.2 %; P = 0.8027). Safety of NOTES was their major concern and the choice of ideal entry point was thought to be the key barrier to NOTES clinical application. Hybrid NOTES was regarded as the best method for NOTES clinical application at the time of the study.
conclusionsPhysicians were hesitant when considering the NOTES approach. However, most of the physicians were interested in NOTES training and had confidence in NOTES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.